i wanted to show you a video

[Der Tor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHy_r7XbkEc

It's so sad... i just had to show it to you guys. Now durring the olympics, the Communist Party arrests so many people, but nobody really cares about it no more... all the major newspapers are just reporting how many medals their country won :|

[Samu-kun]

I wouldn't say that the media is ignoring it. If anything, you can't open a damned newspaper anymore without the usual China bashing. It's been going on for decades and I doubt it'll change. Ah well, I guess sensationalism and spreading fear will always continue to sell better than actual journalism.

[Dusty]

Well, if I never log on again, you know what happened to me.

[F.I.A]

The reason they are not putting in on the headlines is due to the fact that it will "rain down the parade" that is olympic at the moment.

Personally, I prefer to read about these achievements rather than more wrongdoings across the globe when I open my newspaper.

"Learn from the past, but never dwell too long into it."

[Der Tor]

@ Samu: well i guess it depends on what country and which newspaper... the only american newspaper that i can read is Stars and Stripes... and strangely they never seem to write anything about human rights in China, quite the opposite - when they write about China it sounds like your typical Xinhua or CCTV propaganda article... but i guess that's because they don't want the soldiers to divert their attention on other things than the war...

But i really didn't want to make this a political discussion... i will not make any more political comments now... i just wanted to show you the video, cause i thought it's really... well sad... but also cute, somehow

[Samu-kun]

Eh? I wouldn't recommend you to read Stars and Stripes, because I have no idea who they are... Try New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Together, I think they have the highest standards of journalistic integrity in the States.

If you want to read more about what's going on in the minds of the common American citizen (ahem, fear and paranoia), try CNN or Fox for a good laugh. Just don't believe more than 50% of what they write. :3

Mmm... Overall though, I'm a die hard fan of BBC. Honestly, I think they have the best levels of accessibility, journalistic integrity, and relevance. Although I have noted quite a cute bias against the French... :3

[Jake]

Although I have noted quite a cute bias against the French... :3

Don't be ridiculous! It's the rest of the world with a pro-French bias!

[PyTom]

Eh? I wouldn't recommend you to read Stars and Stripes, because I have no idea who they are... Try New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Together, I think they have the highest standards of journalistic integrity in the States.

The Stars and Stripes is a newspaper published by the US Army. I kinda liked the Early Bird, back when I had access to it.

The WSJ I agree with. The NY Times? Not so much. It used to be a great newspaper, but ever since Pinch took it over, it's been terribly biased, to the point where it's hurting the paper's sales. Just take a look at the way they posted a front page story accusing McCain of having an affair without any any evidence whatsoever, but didn't report the John Edwards story until he admitted it.

If you want to read more about what's going on in the minds of the common American citizen (ahem, fear and paranoia), try CNN or Fox for a good laugh. Just don't believe more than 50% of what they write. :3

I actually think Fox News is fairly good at reporting the news, provided you can separate their news from their opinion programming. Their primetime lineup is entirely opinion, and the hosts freely admit that. But the daytime lineup is news-based, and does a fairly good job at it. They were the only outfit that gave an accurate account of the initial Iraq invasion, while all the other news outlets kept confusing "stuck in a quagmire" with "slowing down to let your supply lines catch up".

Mmm... Overall though, I'm a die hard fan of BBC. Honestly, I think they have the best levels of accessibility, journalistic integrity, and relevance.

I generally dislike the BBC because it's funded by the television license, which I think is a terrible thing to have when there are competitors that do not get such funding. Of course, I still watch Doctor Who, and the BBC Parlimentary Election coverage... the latter is great, because it's over at a reasonable hour in the US.

[ficedula]

I generally dislike the BBC because it's funded by the television license, which I think is a terrible thing to have when there are competitors that do not get such funding. Of course, I still watch Doctor Who, and the BBC Parlimentary Election coverage... the latter is great, because it's over at a reasonable hour in the US.

There's a story - possibly apocryphal - of a executive from a US car manufacturer watching an episode of Top Gear where they slammed one of his latest models (that part of the story is plausible - with certain notable exceptions, American cars really aren't well regarded over here...). Allegedly he angrily called up his UK offices and said "Right - pull all of our advertising from that channel and let them know WHY!", at which point the UK office had to explain how the BBC worked to him...

It's a hard problem, public funding can give a channel an unfair advantage; but it means commercial interests can't influence their output.

[Der Tor]

what you guys think of the video?

[Samu-kun]

The WSJ I agree with. The NY Times? Not so much. It used to be a great newspaper, but ever since Pinch took it over, it's been terribly biased, to the point where it's hurting the paper's sales. Just take a look at the way they posted a front page story accusing McCain of having an affair without any any evidence whatsoever, but didn't report the John Edwards story until he admitted it.

I picked WSJ and NY Times because of the fact that they're both biased. The WSJ leans right and the NY Times leans left. I don't care if journalists are biased, as long as they do a good job and don't write sensationalist crap like CNN. It's alright if reporters write their own take on what happened, but it's not alright if they try to manipulate people into turning into lynch mobs, which is honestly what most of the American media is doing.

I actually think Fox News is fairly good at reporting the news, provided you can separate their news from their opinion programming. Their primetime lineup is entirely opinion, and the hosts freely admit that. But the daytime lineup is news-based, and does a fairly good job at it. They were the only outfit that gave an accurate account of the initial Iraq invasion, while all the other news outlets kept confusing "stuck in a quagmire" with "slowing down to let your supply lines catch up".

Eh, I think at the initial phase of the Iraq Invasion, all the American news media were all fervently pro-USA. :3 It's only after occupation phase that some media outlets decided to abandon ship. I think Fox News is more of a joke than a real news outlet. :3 I mean, c'mon, 4-chan a terrorist organization...? XD

[PyTom]

Bias in the editorial pages is to be expected. When it rises to the point where you can't trust the news pages (like it has at the NY times), it's a problem.

I think Fox News is more of a joke than a real newspaper. :3 I mean, c'mon, 4-chan a terrorist organization...? XD

Well, by Fox News I mean Fox News Channel. That's from one of the local fox stations, which have nothing to do with the news network. I have no strong opinion about the local fox stations, other than the general observation that local news tends to suck.

[Blue123]

I generally get my news from the BBC News website. There doesn't appear to be too much bias and it's professional most of the time.